Crow Headed Thinking

1] Throughout the semester we've discussed the problems with representations of Native peoples and how to approach the Indian identity and tackle the stereotypes which have resonated in media until now. Do you agree with Kilpatrick's solution of focusing on "the stories Indians tell of themselves" in place of "telling a story about Indians" [Kilpatrick 179]? Please defend your position. Some things to think about include the fact that one Native person's experience is not every Native person's experience, and furthermore, if the cultural representations are meant for non-Native consumption, it might be easier for an ignorant consumer to defend the stereotypes they feel are either not cleared up or perhaps even added to by the American Indian's work.

2] Kilpatrick quotes Louis Owens talking about the exciting possibility of N. Scott Momaday being canonized in the literary world, which seems to assume that institutional incorporation and, to an extent, assimilation is considered a form of success. With this in mind, do you believe that the commodification and mainstreaming of Native works weakens or strengthens the cause? How and why?

--Stephanie O'Donnell

In Kilpatrick's last chapter, the Indian American Aesthetic, she says that Hollywood can never tell the story right. She believes it is best that Native Americans tell their own stories. They should be their own directors. Rodney Grant, an Indian actor, has no problem with a story being told from a white point of view. He says without it, the story would not have been made. Has the American Indian image been so distorted, that only American Indians can tell their stories?

Aaron Carr, a film director believes that Native Americans need more directors and producers to tell their stories. He also believes in order for their stories reach more audiences, the directors and producers need more financing. Carr uses the example of Spike Lee being supported by Bill Cosby and Oprah as an example. Is taking control of the American Indian image a matter a financing? Or are their other barriers in the way?

1. In his article "Images of Native People As Seen by the Eye of the Blackbird" Darryl Kipp states that, "I cannot believe the stupidities shown to me as fact, and as a result much I see is absurd. .... I guess the difference between the real and the image of being Indians diverged and merged many times before I actually sorted out some of the differences." Using examples from the films and clips we've watched, what absurdities do you think each audience perceives as absurd? Which absurdities do they perceive as truth and why?

2. In Celluloid Indians, Kilpatrick quotes Leslie Marmon Silko's admiration of Victor Masayesva's filmmaking abilities. Silko states that his films "reveal that the subtle but persuasive power of communal consciousness, perfected over thousands of years at Hopi is undiminished. In Victor Masayesva's hands, video is made to serve Hopi consciousness and to see with Hopi eyes." Paying particular attention to the clips from Thursday's class, how might these films be rewritten to meet Masayesva's standards? Try to keep plot lines as similar as possible.

1. There are a number of occasions in this chapter where Native authors express having difficulties with screenplay storylines because they use a circular, Native American chronology in their novels but on film it is much easier to follow a Euro-American, linear time line. Films written and directed by Native Americans are obviously going to be more accurate simply because they are not told about Indians rather they are by Indians but some argue that even these minor adjustments compromise the true essence of the story. Native American storytelling is very complex, some question whether or not film as a medium is actually a, "logical extension of the oral and visual communication of traditional Native American cultures." (Kilpatrick, 179)

With all of this in consideration what is your stance on Native American films? Do you think the omission of certain details affect the validity of the piece or do you think actions such as these are excusable? If so, why or why not?

2. Sam J. Miller's article "Haunting in our Homes: Nightmares of Gentrification" discusses the ways in which the horror film, specifically the subgenre of the haunted house film, acts as a symbol for gentrification. It also discusses how the audience believes in some way or another that, "what 'we' have was attained by violence, and the fear that it will be taken by violence. In the process, because mainstream audiences are imagined as white, and because gentrification predominately impacts communities of color, the racial Other become literally monstrous."

But what if these roles were reversed? How do you think a horror film about gentrification written and directed by Native Americans with Native actors would be received in mainstream society? What elements do you think would be necessary for it to be a success? And, do you think our society is at a point to finally, seriously address these issues?

1. After reading "Haunting Our Homes: Nightmares of Gentrification" by Sam Miller and watching a few clips of horror moves like The Shining and Pet Sematary Two, you should know that filmmakers like to use Indian burial grounds in their films. But, why do you believe filmmakers use Indian burial grounds in movies? Why couldn't the burial grounds be burial grounds for a different kind of people, and why is that all Indian burial grounds hunted by evil Indian spirits?

2. In Celluloid Indians, by Jacquelyn Kilpatrick, she writes, "American Indians have been, for the full run of film history, a sort of weathervane of social and political currents. Richard Hill has noted that the image of the Indian changes with each generation" (178). We have seen that with the movies we have watched. From The Battle at Elderbrush were the Indians hurt or killed anything in their way to Running Brave were Billy Mils a Sioux won the Olympics. How would you describe the image of Indians that our generation has of them?

1.) Given the single "noble savage" stereotype that both Blueback and Cochise typify, the two characters represent two wildly different portrayals of "the Indian." Compare and contrast these two characters to help draw some conclusions about what they might say about views of Indians in America.

2.) Kilpatrick speaks extensively about the damage caused to Indian identity by the use of Indians as "the all-purpose metaphor for the oppressed" (77). In what ways does this generalization damage Indian identity? Does it in any way work towards a positive construction of Indian identity.

~ Joe Krall

Lauren Scheller

1) On page 143, Kilpatrick says, "When an Indian woman is loved by a white man, she is almost certain to die?" Why is the tragic miscegenation love story the most common one in cinema that focuses on Native Americans? Does this type of love story help to further the concept of nationalism? Why or why not? Use examples from our readings and the films we have watched to support your answer.

2) Please support your answer with films and texts used in class. Of the films we have watched in class, do you think Running Brave gave the most positive portrayal of Native Americans? Why or why not? If you disagree, what movie that we have watched do you think gave a more positive portrayal of Native Americans?

Lauren Scheller